put this in your pipe and smoke it

Post #302,895 by boxley 1/22/09 7:01:53 PM Reply	put this in your pipe and smoke it http://money.cnn.com...fortune/index.htm
Post #302,899 by Another Scott 1/22/09 7:28:44 PM Reply	Private companies are different. Cox is a good company in many respects. But they're also private (and have been private for a long time), so they don't have the pressure of "analysts" breathing down their necks for profit increases every 90 days come rain or shine. It's that quest for satisfying Wall Street that has caused so much of the trouble with average employee earnings,, and decimated the long-term prospects of many industries, over the last decade or more. AFAIK, the biggest US companies are publicly traded. Since we're throwing generalizations around, that seems to be the most relevant subset of all corporations. IMHO, of course. :-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #302,906 by boxley 1/22/09 8:27:45 PM Reply	aug 2004 isnt that long ago and it appears that both you and drewk missed the point completely, its not out of largess, its a clear defence of their brand, which makes their bottom line more profitable. Straight bidness 101 but you seem to think that everyone is enron. Losers think that way and what is the current value of enrons stock? Like I said before, look at the long term stock price of companies that are listed as the 100 best places to work then compare, you will find that companies that respect their employees are much more profitable than those who treat their employees like cattle
Post #302,901 by drook 1/22/09 7:31:13 PM Reply	Won't light, must be wet Oh, here it is: "As a privately-held firm, Cox doesn't have to chase quarterly earnings; it can invest for the future." Which means this is not an example (or counter-example) of anything having to do with typical corporate behavior. -- Drew
Post #302,905 by beepster 1/22/09 8:19:53 PM Reply	Is he not a CEO? Evil bastard. Saving those people's jobs. And if the only difference is that he need not deal with wall street...who is the evil...the CEO or the stockholder? And who are the stockholders? ... who's point do you think you're making? I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #302,907 by drook 1/22/09 8:33:18 PM Reply	So what's your argument now? That CEOs in general don't actually exhibit the behavior I've described? Or that they only do it because the shareholders demand it? And while we're at it, you seem to be suggesting that "the stockholders" has some significant overlap with "the workers". Which may be slightly true, but ignores the fact that catering to "the street" doesn't mean main street, it means Wall Street. The analysts and institutional investors drive the short-term thinking, not the people who only check their 401k every couple of months. -- Drew
Post #302,910 by beepster 1/22/09 8:58:06 PM Reply	Shouldn't I be asking you that? Since your prejudice had no mention of any influence other than the CEO. The CEO was the root of that evil. Now it seems that you are changing that to the real influence being Wall Street. Could it be that the decisions are not as easy or as simple as being at the whim of one man/woman? Could it be that there are more (considering the volume of President/CEO titled individuals) like that at Cox then there are like those you have determined to be blanket evil bastards? My point all along is simply that. You CANNOT generalize. It is no less prejudicial that any other statement you may make about groups based on any race, creed, etc..whether born that way or part of a group of choice. There are alot of CEOs and they don't all get press and I posit that more of them are human that you give them credit for being. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #302,917 by drook 1/22/09 11:18:40 PM Reply	Again, look at what started this I was talking about Box's statement about unions. Instead of CEOs or Wall Street, fill in !$unions if it makes you feel better. Whoever it is that unions are negotiating with. Whoever it is that Box said unions should partner with. His statement was that unions are good if and only if they partner with ... well, pick your label, but he clearly meant the people running the company the union members work for. I suggest instead that unions exist because there are companies that otherwise don't treat their employees as partners. See? He said something about unions, I disagreed, and said essentially the opposite thing about unions. But we both said something about unions. If you'd rather talk about the saintly intentions of CEOs and defend them against my outrageous and untrue aspersions, go right ahead. As long as you understand that I was talking about unions. -- Drew
Post #302,923 by beepster 1/23/09 6:48:57 AM Reply	Ok but your approach would have been slightly different had Box said "unions should be ignored because they're all crooked fronts for organized crime". Clearly there is evidence of this being the case with a couple, so they must all be like that. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #302,927 by boxley 1/23/09 8:08:43 AM Reply	good, back on point unions allow workers to have a seat at managements table. If thats the case they need to be in partnership with management rather than antagonists to allow the underlying entity (the company) to prosper. A bad union is the same as a bad ceo, both can kill the entity
Post #302,942 by drook 1/23/09 10:08:11 AM Reply	I figure unions are like advertising You know at least half of them are a waste of money, but you never know which half. -- Drew
Post #302,949 by folkert 1/23/09 10:42:34 AM Reply	ICLRPD

Welcome to IWETHEY!